Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

If it is a 1 in a million (or less) chance, then its safer than storing them on your own computer, which I think would fit the definition of safe. You're requiring that Google meet an extreme defintion of safety that is beyond what a reasonable person would expect (since a reasonable person woud likely not backup files, or back them up locally, both of which are less safe than google).

You're conflating control with safety. As in, you're committing the same fallacy that people who are afraid of flying on airplanes do. An airplane is safer than a vehicle. Drive is safer than a computer. People are afriad of airplanes not because it is more dangerous, but because they are sacrificing control.

>there still is no reason to accuse the OP of a strawman argument

I didn't. That was someone else, but I appreciate the downvote nonetheless.

Yes. Ownership. Operational funding as well. Not paid for by tax dollars, but paid for with income from the products sold by the private company, as well as private investments.

> Suppose the government wanted to shut down Google and Facebook; would the public object? Of course they would.

That's speculative, but the government has shut down many private companies, with and without objection. Should public objection prevent the government from shutting down a private company that is breaking the law? If Google was selling your private email, should they be required to continue to do so, simply because a lot of people enjoy the convenience?

> My comment was in response to a story where Google has deactivated somebody's email address. Think about that for a minute... Should they be able to do that, just because Gmail is a "private website"? I don't think so.

Did you catch the part about the person who's email address that was shut down may have been violating child pornography laws? Not only can Google shut that down at will, they are literally compelled by law to turn it off immediately.

But even in general, Yes, I do think private companies can and should be able to discontinue their products at will, as do many, many people. I'm not hearing a compelling argument why they should be required to provide a public service without tax funding. You are suggesting a public service.

> The question then is, who owns "dwanjiru@gmail.com"?

Google does, plain and simple. If you have organized your life so that you depend on your gmail address, and loss of it would compromise your livelihood, I humbly suggest that we stop talking right now and you go make some backup plans.

> But me and Facebook, or me and Gmail, are in business as much as any other traditional, and protected business transaction, and I feel that my interests in that transaction should be protected too.

Facebook is making money by showing you ads. Their primary business transaction is with advertisers, not with you. They are selling your browsing habits and information about your social network to the advertisers, and that's how they make money. They protect their advertiser's interests first, your interests are only protected as far as it keeps you on the site looking at ads.

I'm not sure what you mean about protected business transactions, but your business transaction is already protected as far as it can be. The transaction is that Facebook delivers your message to your friends in return for your allowing them to tell advertisers about your behavior. That's what they agreed to do, that's what they did, and the transaction ends once they did what they agreed to do. Why are you expecting the government to extend the scope of the transaction beyond what the company promised?

> I'm asking that I be given an opportunity to keep my stuff if they're no longer willing to keep it on my behalf

You have that opportunity right now. Take care of it right now!

If they have to shut down your account for you violating the law, then they cannot legally offer you the option to download your content.

If they have to shut down because they run out of money, then they can't legally force employees to stay there and provide this service to you.

If they decide to shut down your account because the service is losing money, then leaving it on means losing more money. Why should they be required to pay to leave it on? Your dependence on the service and failure to plan doesn't, and shouldn't, bind them to anything.

> My argument is that the opportunity to save my stuff should be mine by right...

Still as wild an idea as before, and I just don't get where you're coming from, I'm sorry. I agree about the problem, but this proposed solution baffles me. I'm sure you're not the only one, and you're clearly a smart person, but I'm surprised that it feels correct to expect private companies to be legally obligated to fulfill your dependencies. I don't see how it's even possible to fulfill this right you propose.

I believe that argument at hand is that massive digital services providers, by power of the market forces, had become just as essential part of our infrastructure as banks. Their behaviour has played a huge role in establishing this position and setting this expectation.

So, the philosophical question is whether Google, AWS, Facebook, et.al. are now "too big to fail" to be subjects of regulation due to their critical role in ensuring preservation and accessibility of human knowledge. They are already being regulated by tons of parties, domestic and foreign, to keep some (lots?) information inaccessible.

This is something that current day harassment laws (and in some countries slander laws) already cover.